Skip to content


Narasammal Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Trichinopoly - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad675(1); (1916)ILR39Mad885; 31Ind.Cas.404
AppellantNarasammal
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Trichinopoly
Excerpt:
income tax act (i of 1886), section 3(5) - annuity grant in mysore--receipt in british india through agent, if income. - .....mysore province, instalments of which were remitted by her agent to her while she was resident in british india.2. we agree with the subordinate judge that these remittances were 'income' under part iv of schedule ii of the income tax act.3. it is argued that after collection by the agent, the money ceased to be income, that the act of the agent in receiving the money in mysore was tantamount to an act of the principal; and that having once been received in mysore, it could not again be received in british india when the agent sent it on to his principal, 'income' means 'what comes in', a definition which will clearly embrace sums derived from a source like this; and it is incontestable that in this case these sums were 'received in british india' within the definition in section 3,.....
Judgment:

1. This appellant was enjoying an annuity in Mysore Province, instalments of which were remitted by her agent to her while she was resident in British India.

2. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that these remittances were 'income' under Part IV of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act.

3. It is argued that after collection by the agent, the money ceased to be income, that the act of the agent in receiving the money in Mysore was tantamount to an act of the principal; and that having once been received in Mysore, it could not again be received in British India when the agent sent it on to his principal, 'income' means 'what comes in', a definition which will clearly embrace sums derived from a source like this; and it is incontestable that in this case these sums were 'received in British India' within the definition in Section 3, Clause (5), of the Income Tax Act and were, therefore, taxable.

4. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //